EPTOn April 19 2013 00:24 DifuntO wrote:
Isn't this a big flaw of the ranking system?
Isn't this a big flaw of the ranking system?
That depends, can you objectively rank matches simply based on the context in which they were played?
Zerg rule finally toppled - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
That depends, can you objectively rank matches simply based on the context in which they were played? | ||
|
m0ck
4194 Posts
I wonder, have you ever thought about making an online/"lan" distinction? I suppose it really should have been done the first time the data was entered. Maps could also be interesting. But it would obviously be a big effort on top of an already giant one. Best of luck, and thanks, I enjoy the site a lot. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:28 m0ck wrote: It's a pretty incredible effort, even if the lay of the land of SC2 will highlight some of the weaker points of such a system. I wonder, have you ever thought about making an online/"lan" distinction? I suppose it really should have been done the first time the data was entered. Maps could also be interesting. But it would obviously be a big effort on top of an already giant one. Best of luck, and thanks, I enjoy the site a lot. That is already done. http://aligulac.com/results/ If there is a globe, it's online, if there are 2 persons, it's offline. No we haven't included maps, and at this point we won't either due to the fact that we then have to plow through 120k games. | ||
|
AnomalySC2
United States2073 Posts
| ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
Basically according to the rankings, it is better to stomp a bunch of no-namers in a WCS qualifier, than to get top 8 in GSL... which i think pretty much every single person in the world who follows esports, will comment, one is definitely not comparable to the other. but i do love reading threads like this where we get "Player X is really good! Trust me I have seen him play, and it was really good!" Because clearly opinion points > He won an international tournament, beating several known koreans.... o wait no foreigner can do that >.> also "He won X tournament" who was there? "A bunch of non-koreans" then your win doesnt hold much value when you are comparing them to someone who faces Koreans in literally every single tournament they attend. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:36 MaestroSC wrote: Kinda hard to be attracted to the site, when the ranking system is not an actual representation of players actual rankings in accordance with their fellow pro's. Basically according to the rankings, it is better to stomp a bunch of no-namers in a WCS qualifier, than to get top 8 in GSL... which i think pretty much every single person in the world who follows esports, will comment, one is definitely not comparable to the other. but i do love reading threads like this where we get "Player X is really good! Trust me I have seen him play, and it was really good!" Because clearly opinion points > He won an international tournament, beating several known koreans.... o wait no foreigner can do that >.> also "He won X tournament" who was there? "A bunch of non-koreans" then your win doesnt hold much value when you are comparing them to someone who faces Koreans in literally every single tournament they attend. I totally agree. The biggest issue for us, is that we have no objective way of truly ranking tournaments according to how "hard they are". Plus, since most koreans are ranked higher than foreigners. Beating them will give you more points than beating a below your level foreigner. Just saying. Also, this site shouldn't be taken as "THE TRUTH" because there can be anomalies, like ForGG and his french-plowing madness. However, all in all, the site does do a better job at predicting results across the board than anything we know of. And the points that ForGG has earned in a closed enviroment (the same can be said for Bunny and the Danish scene) will be lost again to more skilled players who will then rise the ranks. What I am basically saying is that ranking placement =/= pure skill. It's just a somewhat decent proxy. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:44 crms wrote: Are protoss really that underwhelming in HOTS? Or is it residual effect from lackluster WoL performance and they need to catch up? From the FAQ How do the races OP/UP work? On the period list you can see OP/UP fields, and in the infobox for each period, the same data is given as "leading" and "lagging" race. This is an indicator showing which races are most and least prominent near the top of the list. Specifically, for each race imagine a hypothetical player with a rating equal to the mean of the ratings of the top five players of that race, and imagine these three players playing very many games against each other. If the players were of equal strength, each of them would score about 50%, however, in reality, one of them may score, say, 10% more than that. The race that scores the most in this scenario is the "OP", or "leading" race, and the race that scores the least is the "UP", or "lagging" race. This is provided as a way to analyse the metagame shifts near the top of the skill ladder, and should not be taken as actual evidence for real game imbalance. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:49 crms wrote: That's pretty cool methodology. I was more referring to the lack of protoss players in the rankings. I like this OP/UP measure though, really neat. Yeah, the answer to your question is yes, there is a catch-up thing going on. It's hard to say exactly how much of what you're seeing is WoL and how much is HotS, but presumably a non-negligible amount of it is still WoL. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
letian
Germany4221 Posts
it should have been reseted with Hots introduction lol | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
http://aligulac.com/reports/ | ||
|
dreamseller
Australia914 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:54 letian wrote: at this stage, who cares about aligulac rating, I mean seriously. it should have been reseted with Hots introduction lol But... But... The reign is over!!! | ||
|
DifuntO
Greece2376 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:27 Grovbolle wrote: That depends, can you objectively rank matches simply based on the context in which they were played? I don't know how hard it would be to do that but i think it could fix a few problems. Maybe a similar system to what UEFA uses for the Golden Shoe award. Since the 1996–97 season, European Sports Media have awarded the Golden Shoe based on a points system that allows players in tougher leagues to win even if they score fewer goals than a player in a weaker league. The weightings are determined by the league's ranking on the UEFA coefficients, which in turn depend on the results of each league's clubs in European competition over the previous five seasons. Goals scored in the top five leagues according to the UEFA coefficients list are multiplied by a factor of two, and goals scored in the leagues ranked six to 21 are multiplied by 1.5.[4] Thus, goals scored in Serie A, the top Italian football league, will count for more than those scored in the weaker Welsh Premier League, its Welsh equivalent Korea has the best leagues so if you win there you get more points. So we could have 3 tiers of competition: 1stWCS Korea,Proleague,WCS Season Finals,Blizzcon. 2nd WCS EU/NA,MLG,IEM,Dreamhack 3rd Everything else | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On April 19 2013 01:01 DifuntO wrote: I don't know how hard it would be to do that but i think it could fix a few problems. Maybe a similar system to what UEFA uses for the Golden Shoe award. Korea has the best leagues so if you win there you get more points. So we could have 3 tiers of competition: 1stWCS Korea,Proleague,WCS Season Finals,Blizzcon. 2nd WCS EU/NA,MLG,IEM,Dreamhack 3rd Everything else Thing is though, points aren't "given" they are "stolen" from other players | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On April 19 2013 01:01 DifuntO wrote: I don't know how hard it would be to do that but i think it could fix a few problems. Maybe a similar system to what UEFA uses for the Golden Shoe award. Korea has the best leagues so if you win there you get more points. So we could have 3 tiers of competition: 1stWCS Korea,Proleague,WCS Season Finals,Blizzcon. 2nd WCS EU/NA,MLG,IEM,Dreamhack 3rd Everything else It's not an inherently bad approach, but it has its problem within SC2: Is a WCS Korea Code A qualifier really better than WCS EU Code S? Where do you put tournaments like the TeSL (Taiwanese Esports League)? Is Blizzcon 2010 really as prestigious as WCS 2012? Or what about the Korean Weeklies vs. a random ZOTAC cup? There are many, many ways to weigh matches in SC2, and pretty much all of them will give you a headache once you start to seriously think about them. | ||
|
Oyoyoy
13 Posts
On April 19 2013 00:24 DifuntO wrote: Isn't this a big flaw of the ranking system? Not necessarily. That specific quote about the system is an oversimplification, because winning in GSL RO4 you are very likely to have beat an excellent player. The system would reward you for beating an excellent player, not for beating him a specific match. This is simply equivalent to holding the view that GSL is the best league because the best players play in it . | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
| ||
| ||
